On 12/14/05, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is some specific reason it is not deemed suitable
> to commit, please let me know. It is much harder to use
> DisjunctionMaxQuery without this parser.
Hey Chuck,
I committed DisjunctionMaxQuery after I took the time to understand
- Original Message -
*From:* Miles Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org
*Sent:* 12/14/2005 12:43:04 AM
*Subject:* DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser and DisjunctionMaxQuery
>On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>
>>As i mentioned in the comme
Well, for x y z to match y z x you could split words out based on spaces
then sort them. I'd save in both x y z and sorted order. Use the sorted
order for the top 10 list ordering, but take the most common (x y z)
ordering of each set of terms for what to actually show to the user.
-Pete
On 12/
I have successfully used term vectors for both the TREC English and
Arabic collections. Take a look at the code I posted at
http://www.cnlp.org/apachecon2005 or Erik and Otis' book, "Lucene In
Action", which both have good examples of term vectors. Perhaps there
is something with how you are
On Dec 14, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Ravi wrote:
1) I want to store all the details of the my data in the lucene and
I want
to retrieve from the lucene than storing in the database and
retrieve that
from database .Is this technique is good or bad or any other
solution to
this type of problem Pl
Thanks for these helpful links.
Adam
On 14/12/05, Dave Kor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/05, Dave Kor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/13/05, Ian Soboroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > We're also thinking about implementing
Thanks Erik,
I have already have the copy of the book and I am referencing the book to
solve the problems .You have given very nice examples to solve the problems.
I am going on reading this book to solve my problems .
But I still have following problems .
1) I want to store all the details of
Because you did not specify a field to search in, the search
"TITLE:Hello or TITLE:hello or TITLE:h*" will return more I guess. You
can specify a default field to search in via QueryParser.parse(query,
field, analyzer)
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Cortes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
I have a simple question I'm sure that have a simple response, but now
I don't have any idea.
If I have something indexed and stored in the field TITLE ("Hello") and
I search with Standard analyzer (Hello or hello or h*) in this field.
Why don't obtain any hit?
PD: Excuseme if it's so obvio
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> As i mentioned in the comments for LUCENE-323,
> DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser seems to be more of a demo of what's
> possible with DisjunctionMaxQuery -- not neccessarily a full fledged
> QueryParser. I think that's why it wasn't com
10 matches
Mail list logo
